One of the main differences I had with him was over Israel, and what I thought was his failure to appreciate the Jewish state and the fight of its people for survival. My own review of his memoir called him on the contradictions of his position, and was sharply critical of his writings about the topic. I expected him to be more than upset. Instead, he phoned me to say that “I expected nothing less from you,” and promised to think about the points I made. Later, he told my wife and I that he had read and learned a great deal about the topic from the book we had written on Harry S. Truman and Israel’s birth.

At a debate I attended at Georgetown University between Hitchens and his old Trotskyist comrade from Britain, Tariq Ali, the two came to blows of the fiercest nature. When audience members and Ali referred to Israel’s leaders as Nazis, Hitchens responded that the charge was a slander against a people whose leaders were defending themselves against aggression, and although one might oppose the policies of Likud, its representatives could not be condemned in such vicious terms. A critic of Zionism who obstinately refused to understand the principles of its proponents, Hitch was clearly softening a bit and departing from the kind of venom he once used against Israel himself.

Yes, he had a dark side, alluded to here by my friend David Horowitz, who over the years had been in regular dialogue with Hitch, and whose own organization Hitchens often appeared at and spoke for — despite the fact that he did not consider himself a man of the political Right. But Hitchens privately tried to rethink some things. He continued to admire Victor Navasky, and seemed oblivious to Navasky’s denial about the sins of the Old Left, and his belief in the innocence of Alger Hiss. When Hitch seemed upset about the news that I.F. Stone at one point was working for the NKVD (predecessor of the KGB), I gave Hitchens the long article by Max Holland, a Nation editorial board member, that convincingly argued for Stone’s guilt. Hitchens told the friend who gave him the piece that if Holland thought Stone was guilty, there must be something to it.

Hitchens befriended many of the young journalists who came to know and admire him. Speaking of one common friend in particular, he said: “Isn’t it terrific that there are people like him here to carry on our fight?”

A short while back, my own son told me that his work took him to a conference, where he heard a wonderful talk by Alex Hitchens on al-Qaeda. Michael, my son, did not realize that was Hitchens’ son, and that I had actually met Alex at Hitchens’ apartment where my wife and I went to bring him lunch, and where despite his suffering from chemotherapy, he acted as the wonderful host he was and tried to carry on as if nothing was wrong. Mike told me that Alex’s talk was brilliant, and that he and Alex exchanged business cards and talked afterwards for some time. I told this to Hitchens, who was thrilled to learn of how circumstance had brought our two sons together, and that the new generation was concerned with the same issues and bonding over the new fights that had to be won in the future.

Christopher was a bundle of contradictions, a “contrarian” for life as he put it himself, a man who was charming, witty, a wonderful guest and raconteur, and a man who simply could not put up with hypocrisy and tyranny. I miss him greatly, and like so many others who knew him only from his writing, mourn his loss. R.I.P. And if you meet St. Peter and he asks you why you were not a believer, like the late Sidney Hook, you can tell him: “You didn’t give me enough evidence.”

Not really. To someone who’s already convinced there is no God, Pascal’s Wager is self-contradicting. “Let’s act as if something that definitely doesn’t exist does exist in case it REALLY does exist.”

On the other hand, if you’re not sure whether AGW is real, a fabrication, a misinterpretation of the data, then it might make sense to err on the side of caution. Maybe it’s all BS – but if it’s not, then why risk a global catastrophe? I disagree with this position, but not for reasons of caution. I just think the global ecosystem will destroy us before we destroy it.

To me the precautionary principle goes the other way. “So long as there is doubt about the reality of AGW, we should hold off on destroying our economy and making people poor. Rich countries and people will be much better able to respond to AGW if it is in fact happening.”

And that is even if you assume that responding through government action would be more efficient than responding through the market, which I also think is very unlikely. The rapid dissemination of price information should be able to cause multiple simultaneous responses much more quickly and efficiently than government command and coercion.

I’ll plead ignorance regarding buggery, and I haven’t been on a pic nic since I was a child. I enjoy lobster, but I am not sufficiently wealthy to run a blind tasting on sparkling wines. Regarding Champagne, however, I might dispute, except that, of course, there are many Champagnes. I would say, for example, that Vieux Clicquot is not what she used to be but that in her prime she was magnificent and never, never to be underrated.

On the other hand, resurrect Hitch for one day, place the two of us in even a Caneros Creek tasting room, set out a dish of lobster tails*, and we’ll have a serious discussion about Champagne (or even California sparkling wine), the two theses I am willing to test.

Champagne may be over rated, but sparkling wines are not. Try an Argyle Brut at $22 per bottle. A well justified expenditure.

Hitchens could argue the merits of broccoli versus cauliflower and make it fascinating and thought provoking. Give him a deep topic and you may not agree with him, but your complacency about your position will vanish.

Argyle is good. Spanish Cava are also good–and cheaper. Of course, Hitch would have missed the money he would have spent on a Dom Perignon from Champagne much less than I would miss what I would spend on an Argyle from Willamette Valley, where Pinot Noir is coming along nicely but–how would he put it?–whose dialectic has not yet quite become sufficiently “sublated.”

Well, be that as may. Dear Hitch has experienced sublation. His negations have been thoroughly negated. I suppose we who do not embrace the mythology of Redemption must take comfort in this crucial operation of the dialectic. Too bad that Hitch, while rejecting those older representations of Geist, stubbornly buried his head in the wooden nescience of base materialism.

Don’t be such an insensitive twit. Maybe there is a transcendent afterlife that Hitch is enjoying completely free of judgement, damnation, redemption, mercy, etc. where the human spirit is free to “Just be”…

Though I guess the absence of power structures would trouble you religious blokes, no excuses for being anything than what you are. No absolution needed.

Who said this life or the after (if there is one) is or will be just??? It speaks of nievity on your part to assume otherwise. Life merely “is” the only value (or values, such as justice) is that which we ascribe to it.

If I may suggest: If there should be an afterlife in the sense that the very unique identity each of us enjoys now should persist after our individual bodies shall die, that these should nevertheless somehow persist, they each must continue without a body. How to imagine such a being? Perhaps it would be something like the ego each of us beholds in our dreams. When we awaken, however, we find ourselves in our customary bodies again; so the analogy cannot be quite correct. While we have been a-dreaming, our bodies have carried on their ordinary functions. When the body dies, however, all biological functions cease. How can we assert that dreaming occurs when there is no life in the sleeping body at all?

If, on the other hand, after we die, we take on a “glorious body,” today we can have no experience-based conception of what this might mean. Hitchens concluced that the words mean nothing at all. His opponents say they mean everything that ultimately matters. The only thing that the two camps have in common is that neither can speak from experience.

There may, however, be a way out of this conflict. Although when each of us dies, the individual perishes, the species lives on. Our family mourn us, but they return to their own habits of life. Our friends, remembering the best we accomplished, resolve to emulate. If we gave the sacrifice a patriot in war time must, our countrymen are inspired. The spirit in which we participated lives on, augmented by our nobler deeds. In this sense, although it is metaphorical, we live on.

The metaphorical is what I think Hitchens did not explicitly, did not sufficiently acknowledge. Religious people live a metaphorical life, but they take it literally. Both Hitchens and the religious fundamentalists confuse what lives in the spirit for what exists in the material realm, the realm confined to sensation and to the opinions that never depart from the input of sensation. Both forget that a metaphor is the operation of invisible spirit of thought upon the visible givens of sensation. Hitchens forgot that the sensate is infused with thought and so becomes metaphor. His dogmatic opponents confuse what is taken in by the senses with what is generated solely by the nature of thought.

I thank you, sir. I am old, although not as close to the end as Hitch. I hesitate to speak in these kinds of public fora, but sometimes I sense that my personal reflections, expressed appropriately, may shine a little bit of light in dark times.

Hitch was a valiant man. Although his vision of the good scanned far more leftward than mine, it remained virtuous nonetheless.

Too clever by half, for indeed no Christian expects to live forever as a disembodied spirit. Such an existence is a temporary aberration for a human being, to be remedied in the Resurrection of the Dead. The Resurrection is our hope, and we know it is real as surely as Jesus Christ died and rose again.

You might want to ponder this saying: In principio erat verbum. It’s clear, it’s clean; it stands at the beginning. You will sorely desire to rush on to the next few verses. Who could gainsay your zeal? You have submitted to tradition; you are safe. The inquisition can never touch you. You will then have reaped the reward of those who never wonder. Your place in the Paternal paradise is guaranteed!

The absolute refutation of atheistic materialism comes upon death when the reality of the afterlife painfully thrusts itself upon the confused and befuddled atheist who expected the nothing of oblivion. Right now the soul of Christopher Hitchens is going through a rite of passage called Purgatory by Jews and Catholics-don’t confuse Purgatory with eternal damnation which is theological nonsense.

“When audience members and Ali referred to Israel’s leaders as Nazis, Hitchens responded that the charge was a slander against a people whose leaders were defending themselves against aggression, and although one might oppose the policies of Likud, its representatives could not be condemned in such vicious terms.”
It’s when things get really nasty that true friends are born as that’s the point when they have to make a clear choice. And your book “A Safe Haven” might have helped. I appreciated it and also the piece here. Will miss his columns.

Thanks for the excellent post Mr. Radosh. Hitchens’ common sense and wit will be missed. For PJM readers who may not be fgamiliar with his work, I strongly urge you to look into his works which are freely available on line. His maturation as an essayist is fascinating. Thanks again for the post.

Wonderful essay. When listening to or reading Hitchens one sensed he was after truth, not ideology. No one can know absolute truth, of course (which is why ideology so often steps in), but Hitchens never stopped trying. And even when he seemed outrageously wrong, boy did he sparkle. Those two qualities alone, in my view, make for a great man.

Hitch’s assessment of theism may in some, in none, or in all particulars be true; but howsoever, the comment expressed in #5 is extremely arrogant. If such a comment encapsulated the whole range of theists’ pronouncements, Hitch could stand before the Throne with an indictment in hand stronger than Job’s. A sentence linking “dumb jerk” and “mercy” is just the kind that Hitch would flip off as the most jejune example of a fanatic’s hypocrisy.

Well, Ron, Hitch was much more willing than almost all other Leftists to confront an “inconvenient truth;” but then, he was always a Trot, with an inveterate hatred of Stalinism in any form. He must have thought the Alinsky-ites were absolutely “unscientific” Gramsci-ite charlatans.

Ah, Christopher Hitchens. Such a wonderful life, filled with changing opinions and books. Now he’s gone and with the Almight…..er, maybe. Probably not. I wonder how Mother Theresa is fairing in her immortal existence with Jesus?

The real test (since we are imagining, like the author of Job and like Goethe of Faust, a heavenly scenario) is: if God* exist and He be just, will he allow Hitch to interrogate Mother Theresa and she to respond before He determines the Dante-precise location of Hitch’s everlasting abode? If God be King, will He grant such republican liberty?

—
*meaning God the Father as pictured in the books of the Christians and the Jews. I put aside for the moment just how far this image goes in attempting to encapsulate the Infinite Subject and so I avoid inquiring how Hitch would respond to Hegel.

Hitchens may or may not have the opportunity to ask questions on Judgment Day, for Scripture does not specify whether or not the Accused will be silent while he is being judged according to his works. But, that day is not today. Until the netherworld and the sea give up their dead, the wicked are consigned to hell, and they will have no interaction with God or with the saints.

As I said elsewhere, reading his opinions on the computer: sometimes you agreed with him, and sometimes you wanted to throw something at the screen; however you were never in any doubt about his brilliance and eloquence. He’ll be missed…

I, too, will miss Christopher Hitchens because he believed so passionately in the things HE believed in. It takes a lot of courage to do that, especially when you’re in a room filled with people who disagree with you. I remember very clearly a show he did once with Bill Maher (a dreadful creature I thoroughly detest) where Mr. Hitchens defended George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq and the audience was booing him very loudly. To my amazement, Hitchens kept on talking quite calmly to Maher, while at the same time giving the finger to the audience. In a room filled with liberals, THAT takes courage. You may still be able to see the video of that on YouTube.

But Mr. Hitchens never flinched from a fight and he always told people exactly what was on his mind, regardless of the consequences. I also believe that no threat of any kind could have convinced him otherwise. He reminded me so much of Sir Thomas More in “A Man for All Seasons.” In that play, a friend of More’s asks More to accept Henry VIII’s divorce, which More refused to do. “Thomas,” said the friend, “Why don’t you come with us, for fellowship?” Then More replied, “When we die and you go to heaven for doing your conscience and I’m sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me then, for fellowsihp?” Somehow, gang, even though Hitchens was an athiest, I can still see him going to heaven for following his conscience, in all things.

Well said, sir. Perhaps godliness consists in this: the unshakable willingness, in matters of opinion and in matters of _personal_ action, to abide by the truth as you believe it to be (ethical sanity assumed). I might just add that Hitchens, Trotskyite that he was, adhered to a pluralism that Thomas Moore would never have accepted. The Catholic Church, had it the power, would spurn it now, just as it did in Moore’s time.

I remember a couple years back, when he was first diagnosed, Hitch wrote a column specifically asking people not to pray for him. Thinking that that was cool, I said a quick one anyway figuring he’d never know.
On his passing I do pray that the Good Lord smiles kindly on him…after He pulls a nasty practical joke on Hitch’s ass, threatening him with Fire and Brimstone, all the while laughing maniacally…MWAHAHAHAH….and then saying “Just kidding Hitch. All is forgiven”.
That’s what I’d like. RIP Hitch.

A bit over the top, sir. Was Hitchens perfect? No. But if you claim to be a believer in a merciful God and nevertheless withhold mercy, who is the greater sinner, you or Hitch?

Look, my opinions on (1) the existence of Supreme Being and (2) the virtues of a putative Universal Church are NOT as antagonistic as Hitch’s. Let us not, however, kid ourselves; much of what he has to say, albeit said a tad harshly, is not substantially inaccurate.

Where I depart from Hitch–on the emotional front–is that I simply do not share his vituperation. By the same token, I find your implied vituperation to be extremely uncharitable. Hitch, an atheist, might excuse himself for such animus. Your excuse is? The zeal of your love of the Lord? If so, you play into Hitch’s hand more readily than the greenest novice plays at poker with a pair of deuces.

I’d like to see some substantiation of these claims, if you will. You must realize that you cannot just assert them and expect others to accept your authority.

Frankly, I am not especially invested in defending Hitch with respect to this or that particular. I believe I indicated that his politics ply far more leftward than my own. Nevertheless, because I have witnessed ample evidence of his own integrity, I’d like to see some serious, detailed, and verifiable evidence that reinforces the kind of claims you have raised. I suspect that others reading these comments are likewise scrupulous.

Well if you insist on insulting the late Mr Hitchens you could quote the man who sucked up to Saddam, Bashar Al Asad, Hassan Nasralla, used rape imagery against Israel in Al Jazera, said that the day the Iron Curtain fell was the saddest day of his life, collected money for Hamas and proudly handed them big checks, taken bribes in the form of Oil and “charity” fronts with untracable money, praised Al Qaeda’s attacks in Iraq, traitor George Galloway, who famously called Hitchens “a drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay”

Note that for Galloway it’s being a former Trotskyite that’s an insult, he’d consider “Trotskyist” a compliment.

He was a great admirer of Orwell and I think he followed his example well. He was not an idealist but a humanist and it seems to me that he based his thoughts and opinions on that principle. Thank you Christopher.

How I wish I was there in the spiritual realm to see Chris Hitchens’ astonishment that his mind had survived his untimely death; that he is very much alive in the spiritual state that he’d mocked all his life as a primitive fiction of “evil religion;” that there’s more to existence than flesh. Is he disappointed to know that he was wrong for so long, that his crude, inexorable materialism was a hoax? Does he unhappily feel cheated that he wasn’t obliterated, dissolved into nothingness like he rigidly thought? Is he saddened to know that religion was right, that he’s an undying, immortal, imperishable soul? Is he cursing his state craving nihilism instead which he believed was his fate in the end? How’s he handling the truth that God exists, and that he owes his great mind and existence to Him? Hitchens’ soul must be in intellectual turmoil as his life of unbelief ill-prepared him for death. And so must it be for all atheistic materialists who’ll have the truth thrust upon them in the end.

The brillance of Christopher Hitchens lies in his erudition and mastery of the English language. He was a true wit who could use satire to such an effective extent that the dazzled his readers. In the world of American journalism he was a shinging light; one cannot help but notice the complete contrast to the average American journalist ala NY Times, Washington Post, and their multifarious manifestations in local newspapers. The poverty of American journalist with its bumper sticker/cum political cant logic was highlighed by the brillance and wit of a truly erudite essayists. The world of American journalism is a vast desert of insipid uneducated buffoons and Hitchens shown brightly in this miasma of ignorance. RIP Hitchens; great writers are a treasure for any culture.

I rather like the movie “What Dreams May Come”. It’s my hope the afterlife is something like what is depicted there. I can only imagine what kinda place Hitch would subconsciously build for himself.

Sharp mind, sharper tongue, never hesitated in using those razors to cut down ideas and people he thought were wrong or evil. Loved that and will he’ll be sorely missed, even if he was occasionally flipping the bird in my direction.

I spoke to him on the Allan Colmes show one night. He was presenting his belief that the idea of God was stupid. I asked him about his children. I asked him ,what was the appropriate age to tell his children that their life would be totally meaningless? As he usually did he descended into perjoratives instead of facing the hard answer.

The most likely fact that there is no afterlife does not make this life meaningless, it instead implies that this is all you have and should make the most of it. Do not live your life preparing for something that may await you after death.

Go to Saudi Arabia and tell that to any more morons who think flying planes into innocent people is a permanent luncheon with virgins during a permanent glorious sunset. Anyway, Heaven generally sounds a lot like Hell since there is no light without shadow and no life without death.

Excellent, eloquent piece of writing for a friend with huge faults and huge attributes, along with many accomplishments. like so many of us. He wasn’t a Saint, but how many us are.

The death of Christopher Hitchens brings to mind a well known Mickey Mantle joke about Mick getting to the pearly gates and being told my St. Peter. Sorry Mick, but you didn’t make the team. Before you go,though, as a personal favor, God would appreciate it if you signed these 60 baseballs.

Leftists who shift right should thank…their genes ? that they didn’t get mired down in a terminal case of arrested development.

Hitchens assessed what was going on around him and shifted accordingly, while, of course, retaining vestiges of his former self. This differentiates him from the diehard Leftist who clings bitterly to a fixed, unchanging and unchangeable, set of narratives.

You knew Hitchens was always striving to say what was true whether or not you agreed with him 100%.

When I think of the death of Hitchens I can’t help but think of his gloating over the deaths of Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul and Bob Hope. It is interesting that neocons love him so much. It shows that supporting foreign wars is their number one priority. They are not in the least bit interested in conservatism. Hitchens also celebrated what was done to the Christianity in Russia. That it involved killing literally millions of Christians doesn’t seem to bother neocons. He was the Purest Neocon.